Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Supreme Court’s Shoddy Scholarship

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:51 AM
Original message
The Supreme Court’s Shoddy Scholarship
from Truthdig:



The Supreme Court’s Shoddy Scholarship

Posted on Jan 24, 2010
By Ruth Marcus


In opening the floodgates for corporate money in election campaigns, the Supreme Court did not simply engage in a brazen power grab. It did so in an opinion stunning in its intellectual dishonesty.

Many of those commenting on the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission have focused on the power grab part. I agree. It was unnecessary for the court to go so far when there were several less-radical grounds available. It was audacious to seize the opportunity to overrule precedents when the parties had not pressed this issue and the lower courts not considered it. It was the height of activism to usurp the judgments of Congress and state legislatures about how best to prevent corruption of the political process.

“If it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more,” a wise judge once wrote. That was Chief Justice John Roberts—back when—and dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens rightly turned that line against him.

As bad as the court’s activism, though, was its shoddy scholarship. ........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_supreme_courts_...




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Blue Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. Them and their "justice"
whatever the fuck that means these days...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. Even Rehnquist got it:
In a 1982 case, the court—in a unanimous opinion by then-Justice William Rehnquist—noted that Congress, in writing campaign finance law, was entitled to “considerable deference” in taking into account “the particular legal and economic attributes of corporations and labor organizations” and had made “a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process.” Four years later, even as it carved out an exception for nonprofit corporations, the court reaffirmed “the need to restrict the influence of political war chests funneled through the corporate form.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Sep 18th 2014, 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC